Lacey: The Queen & Prince Charles massively screwed up the Sussex situation

State Opening of Parliament

Robert Lacey’s book, Battle of Brothers, is being released in paperback with new chapters and updates. The new chapters and updates are about what was happening before, during and after the Sussexit. It’s pretty clear that Prince William provided “his side” of the story to Lacey, especially given the new chapter released over the weekend. Lacey’s summary of the inner-workings of Kensington Palace revealed a toxic workplace where staffers apparently lost their ever-loving minds about having to work for a Black duchess, so they created a storyline where Meghan is an “unhinged sociopath.” For the love of God. But Lacey also has a new chapter on the Sussexes’ Oprah interview and what it revealed. I’ll spare you Lacey’s patronizing take on Meghan’s very real concerns about security and protection for herself, Harry and their children. But there were some interesting parts:

Charles didn’t want Archie to be “burdened” with royal titles: Charles seems to have shared with them the plans he was nursing for changing the rules. For Archie to be saddled with an elevated HRH title could be “just a burden”, explained one senior aide who was close to the couple. The possible abolition of Archie’s future HRH was all part of Charles’s mildly obsessive desire to create a slimmed-down monarchy.

Charles is the only one who wants a slimmed down monarchy? Many royal fans said they rather enjoyed seeing all those uncles and cousins and aunts — and especially the children — lined up and waving cheerily along the balcony. And who wanted to look at no one but Charles and Camilla? Now the future King Charles III was, apparently, set on eliminating Harry and Meghan’s two children from full HRH prince and princess status for reasons of what — economy and modernisation? It was surely a false economy. And how “modern” was it to consider denying full HRH status to the only members of the British royal family who, with their mother Meghan, were of mixed race?

Failure of imagination: So at the time of the Oprah interview in March 2021, Charles already had three HRH grandchildren, but had seemed ready to get the rules changed in order to deny HRH status to his two mixed-race grandchildren by Harry and Meghan. No wonder Meghan cried foul, and Oprah cried “What?” The failure of imagination and empathy was staggering.

Post-Oprah interview, Buckingham Palace had to admit that they weren’t diverse: A week later another leak revealed the planned appointment of a “palace diversity tsar” to handle the racial matters. “We haven’t seen the progress we would like,” admitted a senior royal source, “and [we] accept more needs to be done. We can always improve.”

Meghan & Harry had a point: Meghan and Harry had delivered some low blows in talking to Oprah in a thoroughly non-familial fashion, but it was impossible to swat away their essential truth. When Meghan had arrived in Buckingham Palace some three years earlier and had walked down any corridor — or the corridor of any other palace — to enter any office, the face of virtually every senior official whom she encountered had been white.

The Queen’s all-white team: Elizabeth II, head of the multiracial Commonwealth, was still running her show with a virtually all-white team. What had happened to the brave diversity principles established and championed so boldly more than half a century ago by the colour-blind young monarch who had danced in the arms of President Nkrumah of Ghana? In 1961 Elizabeth II’s diversity principles had shocked, challenged and inspired the world. Now her palace was the object of worldwide scorn — and even horror.

The Queen’s larger misstep: The monarch who “never put a foot wrong” had taken a misstep. Elizabeth II might feel she had nothing to prove when it came to accusations of racism, but she had entrusted the essentials of her reign to the custody of those clubby white father figures who comforted her as her private secretaries over the years — from the grave and grey-suited Tommy Lascelles and Michael Adeane to her current private secretary Edward Young. None of them had had the vision to shake up the white Anglo-Saxon system inside the palace to reflect the diverse modern world outside, and here were the sad consequences — which the Queen now had to deal with at the very moment she had lost the support of her husband, the man on whom she had always relied in moments of difficulty like this.

[From The Times of London]

I mean, Lacey isn’t saying anything here that wasn’t known, litigated and gossiped about for years. But it’s interesting to see a stuffy, white, patronizing royal historian basically say that Charles f–ked up by not wanting his mixed-race grandchildren to be HRHs and that the Queen has f–ked up for decades by not bringing in more diverse voices. There were very real consequences for those two massive errors: a charismatic duke and duchess are now living in exile in America with their two untitled children, and they’re never coming back.

Queen's Christmas broadcast

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

105 Responses to “Lacey: The Queen & Prince Charles massively screwed up the Sussex situation”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Oy_Hey says:

    When the old white RR guy points out that only the mixed descendants don’t get titles…

    Also this is a self made problem for the BRF. They have Brexit and Scottish independence and North Ireland to worry about but then decided to add this for shiggles lol

    • taris says:

      it’s deplorable that in the year of our lord 2021, the head of an organisation of 2 billion people – about 70% of whom are not white – doesn’t seem to have the imagination nor the courage to diversify her ranks. we can blame the queen’s advisers (and i do think she’s been badly served many times throughout her reign, especially lately), but after 69 years she should know better. seriously.

      (white) people always like to keep pointing to that one time they did this or that as proof that they’re not racist, but i think we all need to understand that inclusion is an ongoing, sincere effort. good for the queen that she danced with nkrumah way back when, but you know what? what happens now and in your home is even more revealing about who a person is and what their priorities are.
      while i don’t believe the queen herself is a hardcore racist or anything, she must understand how bad her institution – and, by extension, she – looks right now. optics matter. we can say ‘oh, she’s from a different time’ and right now people like her, but long after she’s gone i honestly don’t think history will be kind to her on this issue.

    • Chica1971 says:

      So.QEII lacks agency and couldn’t figure out why so many black countries sought Independence. The Crown was right, she is simply not a smart woman (not meaning college educated). She lacks basic smarts and understanding or interest in the world at large.

      • JennyJazzhands says:

        Right? Of course she’s never “put a foot wrong”. She’s never moved a foot in any direction to do anything…ever.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      Let’s NEVER forget Chucky’s “slimmed down Monarchy” was ALWAYS going to be W/K, their kids, AND Harry and whomever he married (but not necessarily their kids). Harry was ALWAYS included in this. And his children were to ALWAYS have the option of being styled Prince/ss, changing to HRH when he ascended the throne. Funny how that ONLY changed after he married Meghan, and after the Oceana tour at that.

    • Natalie C Tyler says:

      I know this is a fantasy but what if: Meaghan were not beautiful, charasmatic, and intellectually miles ahead of these people?
      I think that it’s mostly about race but ALSO It’s about Charles and William needing to be the most attractive, intellectual and respected men in the country. They want headlines of admirations. How frustrating to have the attention diverted!

      I lived in Bath, UK for three months in 1997 (right before Diana was killed) and every headline of every newspaper–whether tabloid or legitimate–had a sharp focus on Diana and all of the humanitarian work in which she was engaged. Clearly she won over people with her actual good works with landmines and AIDS and other pressing issues of the day. For a visitor like me, Diana WAS the Royal Family and that was well after her divorce.

      Diana and Meghan are like catnip to the BM. The last time I was in the UK Charles (2016??) had his “black spider” scandal and it was in the bowels of the newspapers. People snickered about them. FWIW, I admired those black spiders and have been sorely disappointed in the POW.

  2. Seraphina says:

    How about “Liz and Chucky massively screwed up Willy Wonka” and that is why they have these issues. Regardless of what the courtiers are doing, if Chuck and Willy Wonka had an ounce of shame, compassion and love for Harry and Meghan we would not be here because the Courtiers would be kept in place or fired. Liz may be excused by some as not knowing about what the courtiers are doing (I don’t buy it) but Chucky and Willy don’t get a pass. Instead of focusing on the “Sussex Situation” they should focus on themselves – but that requires work.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      I think that BOTH Charles and William, sharing the same personal demons of ego and jealousy were FURIOUSLY SEETHING at seeing just how popular H&M are, that H&M’s star power kept rising and rising in terms of charisma, results…the public adoration from the *actual* crowds that came and cheered them (not the rabid Brexiter crowd that permeates the tabloid comment sections). BOTH men HATE(D) their wives to be more popular than them: Charles almost exploded with jealousy over Diana’s popularity; William chose a woman who would blend into the drapes to make sure she wouldn’t outdo him.

      So yeah…cahoots.

      • kelleybelle says:

        I’m not sure that William “chose” Kate. She wouldn’t go away and no one else wanted him. And he was being pressured by queen and Middletons.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        Kelleybelle, yes, I know, she was literally the last one standing that wanted him. I’m just alluding to the fact he would NEVER cope with a wife who could outperform/shine him in ANY way.

        The aristos he courted were socialites who were content to shop, do a bit of charity work, and *may’ve* had a “vanity job” until they got married. I don’t think any of them had any “real” job (in a real world situation. Even Isabella, whom he *really* wanted worked for her father, Richard Branson). William couldn’t have ever coped with a Chelsey (who went to law school and is now founder of a jewelry company) or a Meghan.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “Even Isabella, whom he *really* wanted worked for her father, Richard Branson.”

        Richard Branson is her father-in-law not her father.

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        You’re right, BTB! Oops! 😊

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Per Wikipedia:

        Isabella Amaryllis Charlotte Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe (born 3 March 1980) is an English socialite, actress and model.

      • aftershocks says:

        Actually, I’ve read articles which stated that Isabella was never really interested in William, but she humored him, i.e. allowed him to hang around for awhile. Eventually, she frankly told him (according to aristo reports): “I can’t date you William. It would destroy my career.” So Isabella was/ is a career-minded ‘socialite’. She later met and married Brian Branson. And Cressida Bonas is her half-sister.

        Word is that Kate Keen knew Isabella was a serious threat. William was smitten by Isabella’s tall, blond Diana-like looks, thus he briefly split with Kate circa 2003 to run after Isabella. The kicker is that all the aristo eligibles know what happened to Diana when she married into royalty. None of the aristo ladies ever seriously entertained marrying either of the Wales brothers.

  3. GrnieWnie says:

    welp, looks like being colour blind isn’t such an effective strategy after all. Because when you magically “don’t see colour,” you conveniently don’t see racism. Which is how you fail to see the racism of excluding your only non-white grandchildren from having royal titles.

    • swirlmamad says:

      Exactly this. Pegging Liz as “colorblind” and therefore somehow modern and forward-thinking is not a compliment.

    • Mac says:

      They seem to be confusing color blind with tone deaf.

    • sunny says:

      Yup. I am always suss when people say they don’t see colour because it is incredibly telling of how ignorant they are. It really is one of the most racist things you can say. Whew!

    • TeamMeg says:

      Great comment @GrnieWnie 🌈🙏🏼

    • HeatherC says:

      I’ve said it before on here, but the only person I ever knew who could say that was my late father. He was completely color blind (rare congenital, he literally could not see color). The only time I ever heard him say it was relating a story on how he tried to get out of a ticket by saying he didn’t see color (didn’t work but he said he gave it his all!). So when someone who does not have congenital or acquired literal color blindness says they don’t see color to “prove” they’re not racist, they’re proving they’re actually racist AF. Even I, a white woman who grew up in a white town and went to a white school with NO POCs, can see this. Color and all

  4. Snuffles says:

    And…they let Kensington Palace run roughshod over the Sussex’s and did fuck all to keep them in check. And they can’t even claim they had no idea because Harry had gone on record that they seemed help and was met with silence.

  5. Amy Bee says:

    Why not just say that the Royal Family is racist and don’t want to accept Meghan and her children as part of the family? And why Lacey didn’t ask his sources at KP for an update on the diversity czar?

  6. iforget says:

    So the question is, what are they going to do about it? My heavily researched answer is, absolutely freaking nothing.

  7. Lauren says:

    “The failure of imagination and empathy was staggering.” Very much this. Also, the PR nightmare that it would become. Naive, out of touch, and racist doesn’t even begin to cover the palace aides and the RF.

  8. MaryContrary says:

    The whole “she never put a foot wrong” narrative is a load of nonsense too-how Diana was handled is a prime example.

    • SarahCS says:

      They go with the ‘if we keep saying it people will accept it’. In much the same way that they say the same for Keen Linchpin Guevara KKKate when we have literally seen her foot go wrong, and seen right up her skirt in fact when she used to flash people regularly.

    • pottymouth pup says:

      and don’t forget the Aberfan mining disaster – she sent Phillip because she couldn’t be persuaded to go herself & didn’t go until people were questioning why she sent Phillip instead of going herself considering how huge a disaster it was and how many people, mostly school children, died

      but, sure, she’s never put a foot wrong

  9. AVEA says:

    The “slimmed down monarchy” is such a dumb excuse as well. Like, there are already non working HRH Princesses -and a whole lot more assorted non working titled royals- all of them LOWER in the line of succession, why not start with stripping them of titles? Why start with Numbers 7 and 8?

  10. Jais says:

    Lacey calls the slimmed down monarchy “a false economy.” What does he mean exactly? I’m reading it as what a lot of y’all have been saying: a slimmed down monarchy still costs the public the same amount. Is that what Lacey is saying here or am I misinterpreting? Seems like the public wants to see the whole family up on the balcony and if they’re paying the same amount either way then the public should at least get to stare at all the cousins and grandchildren.

    • Naomi says:

      i take it as the ruse of austerity — claiming that “the numbers” show the need to slim down for efficacy but really it’s an excuse to cut out people you don’t want (like low-level workers). so this analogy shows how charles uses “slimmed down monarchy” as an excuse to cut out the sussexes, hiding his racism (no nonwhite royals) behind “data/economy/numbers”

      • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

        Cut out those you don’t want (so the focus is ALL on you and your ego), yet you will pay the SAME amount in taxes for fewer people’s upkeep. Not quite a good value/bang for your buck, is it?

      • AmB says:

        I think he’s just calling them fat, in a very convoluted way. As in, “too many people on this balcony makes me look fat” or something. (I got nothing.)

    • Lauren says:

      Basically yes. The cost to maintain a reduced firm isn’t going to go down and if it isn’t it’s better to have a balcony-full of them to justify the excessive cost.

    • Snuffles says:

      I always imagined it was Charles’ way of cutting off the people in the family he doesn’t like or don’t personally serve his ego.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        Snuffles, that is exactly what it is! Charles can’t handle anyone who is more popular than him, which is why Cain and Unable are perfectly suited to stay within the monarchy, bedsides the fact that Cain is the heir. Charles and Cain, plus Unable, were betting on Harry carrying the heavy load for the monarchy. Harry was to be used as the scapegoat for when things went badly and his work would be taken by his father and brother, which we already have witnessed with Cain. But the problem became that Meghan was his choice of his bride and the two of them became megastars, which has not only upset Charles but has also upset Cain and Unable. They did not plan for the outcome once the two of them came together, and the monarchy became much more diverse and forward thinking. Charles, and Cain, have become enraged as to how much the public adored them both and they were so enraged with jealousy, this is history repeating itself.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “Lacey calls the slimmed down monarchy “a false economy.” What does he mean exactly?”

      That means the Crown/BRF is going to have less people to spend money on through financial support of their livelihood but the aggregate money spent will will remain the same or possibly increase.

    • Becks1 says:

      That’s exactly how I’m interpreting it – the emphasis on slimmed down monarchy never discusses reducing overall costs – it may include comments about reduced security costs going forward or fewer royals on the sovereign grant – but that never ends with “so the SG will be reduced and the government gets to keep more of the crown estate money.”

      Also, the people on the balcony (supposedly) don’t cost the public anything. People LIKE to see little Savannah and Isla Phillips interacting with George and Charlotte, they LIKE to see the Queen with more great-grandchildren each year, they LIKE to see Charles holding one of his grandkids (I dont think that has happened at a trooping and I think it was Camilla’s granddaughter at the Cambridge wedding, but my overall point stands.) Is that really costing the public anything? If anything that’s a win-win, because it makes the public see the royal family as a family first and it doesn’t cost anymore than having the fab five or whatever we’re calling them now on the balcony and no one else.

      Failure of imagination indeed.

      • Becks1 says:

        Oh and I also think the phrase is about the lack of HRHs for the Sussex children – basically “what are you giving up in the name of ‘economy’? You’re making yourselves look horrible on the world stage by insisting the first mixed-race royals cannot be HRHs, but at least the balcony appearances will be smaller.”

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “Also, the people on the balcony (supposedly) don’t cost the public anything.”

        So true!!!

        Also, It cost the same amount to maintain and secure Clearance House, Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, St. James Palace and Kensington Palace whether you have 5 people or 50 people living there.

    • Talia says:

      Also, people expect minor Royals to show up at the opening of the new town hall etc. as a representative of the Monarch. Wide ranging initiatives are all very well but it’s the day to day bread and butter work that inspires affection and support.

      Harry and Meghan managed both – it’s the difference between creating the Invinctus Games and showing up and chatting to injured service personnel. If Harry had just done the former, he would be respected but the affection comes from the boots on the ground work.

      Even the Royals without Harry’s charm are forgiven if they *show up*. People like the Duke of Gloucester and (before the RF tried to make them ‘happen’, Edward and Sophie) don’t make the papers but them showing up day after day make people think the RF care.

      Without the minor Royals of the next generation, there is going to be a gaping gap in the RF outreach programme. Harry and Meghan wouldn’t have been enough – they couldn’t have physically been in three places at once, but because they were good at what they did do, they might have been able to paper over the gaps. Of course, the elephant in the room is all the work Will and Kate aren’t doing which for now is being ignored.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The “Bread and Butter” engagements are what bring the BRF into direct contact with “the people” at the grassroots level.

        The Queen Mother understood this, Diana understood this and Princess Anne understands this.

        Chucky III has major problems on his hands.

      • Sofia says:

        I agree. I know some here don’t really like the “bread and butter” engagements but it IS those engagements that actually let people meet the royals directly and therefore inspire affection, as you said.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Sofia – and if one is “lucky” then one will get their picture taken with Princess Anne, one’s grandmother or auntie will go out and buy a most excellent silver frame and your picture with Princess Anne will sit in its silver frame on the piano in the best drawing room FOREVER for all to see.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Talia, which is what I don’t understand. Cain and Unable costs the Duchy so much money, with all of the unnecessary renovations, the clothing, jewelry, properties and constant demands from Unable to be awarded with endless amounts of money and upkeep, that neither one of them has taken a serious approach to doing anything for the Monarchy. The number of engagements that each of them make are absolutely disgusting! Why are Cain and Unable granted to do nothing and are the ones that are costing the most? Anne does three times as many events at her age, and for her entire life, but Cain and Unable get a pass every time. In addition, Camilla has also taken a strong stance in working for the Monarchy and takes her work seriously as well, in addition to Anne. It’s utterly unacceptable and disgusting that they sit doing nothing as they have all of the funds at their disposal without any accountability.

    • Jais says:

      At least Lacey is willing to name the false economy of it all, I guess? Which is more than any of the usual RR would ever say but this could be a whole book rather than just two words. Everything you guys just said should be included and repeated in the tabloids. Imagine that would be dangerous for the monarchy though😳

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Robert Lacey is not a RR. Robert Lacey is considered an academic and historian who writes successful books.

        Robert Lacey has no desire to lose his credentials as an academic and historian.

      • lanne says:

        Robert Lacey doesn’t seem to be doing much academic due diligence in parroting the KP smears of Meghan. I think he wants some of the cracktastic cookies at the Ratchet Annual Ass Kissing luncheon.

      • Ginger says:

        Lacey may not be a RR but he still needs his access with the palace. He will toe the line to get that access. He is just like the RR’s in my opinion. None of them will tell the whole truth. And will spin what truth they have to fit their agenda.

  11. Elizabeth says:

    I note Lacey more than suggests Phillip would have been helpful to the queen in diversifying her staff. PHILLIP, who spent his life making racist jokes about people to their faces.

  12. ElleE says:

    No. Most of this is fiction. Read this out loud and tell me if this is something any person actually said IRL:

    Re: the planned appointment of a “palace diversity tsar” to handle the racial matters. “We haven’t seen the progress we would like,” admitted a senior royal source, “and [we] accept more needs to be done. We can always improve.”

    Diana didn’t go to uni and she didn’t live long enough to watch King Arthur school Utred in Netflix’s Last Kingdom on the importance of being the person to actually document history but she taught the Royals a lesson and Harry was paying attention: live interviews can be played over and over and over. Her words live on and the Royals are still fighting them which is why they can’t stop trying to gaslight her: she documented her story.

    That is what is happening here. The Royals just can’t actually speak directly on camera. They can’t say, “she said this so I said this” Diana could, Harry can.

    This is further lame historical documenting of “the truth “ -sorry, it may be their truth, except future generations, Bea’s kids, etc., they are just going too watch YouTube vids, not get the “real story” by reading this book in the library.

    • Becks1 says:

      I don’t know if anyone actually said that, but that quote about the diversity czar or something very similar was put out shortly after the Oprah interview. I don’t think that’s a direct quote to Lacey. It could have been made up, but it wasnt made up by him.

      • ElleE says:

        @Becks1 I see that it seems as if I was accusing Lacey of writing fiction; I meant to say that he is being fed fiction. For example, the statement below implies that there was an identified desire / need to change the status quo, a lack of vision. I think that the “vision” was just fine!

        “None of them had had the vision to shake up the white Anglo-Saxon system inside the palace to reflect the diverse modern world outside, and here were the sad consequences — which the Queen now had to deal with at the very moment she had lost the support of her husband, the man on whom she had always relied in moments of difficulty like this.”

        Also loved “the man on whom she had always relied on…” can they even say one thing without calling Phillip her “rock”? Jesus.

      • Becks1 says:

        @ElleE ah I get your point now. Yeah, this is just trying to put a different spin on the idea that the institution is racist. “they wanted to diversify, they just lacked the vision!”

        The Oprah interview did a lot of damage and they cannot figure out how to undo it.

  13. Niamh Darlington says:

    According to a YouGov poll only 7% of brits admit to having a photo or mug of the Royals in their house…50 years ago that was around 70%. The monarchy will be done by the time its William’s turn.

    • Harper says:

      Mornings are hard enough without having to look at Prince Elegant the Incandescent’s face on your mug.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @Niamh Darlington – What about biscuits tins? LOL!

    • Dawning says:

      The mugs are on red-tag clearance at Marshall’s. Nobody wants them. Hubby bought me one. He was so excited because he thought he had a bargain. I returned it the next day. None of those ugly mugs in my house (pun intended).

    • L84Tea says:

      I’m laughing at this because a friend of mine is married to a Brit and they were over there at the time of both W&K’s and H&M’s weddings and stood outside and watched both of them go by in their carriages. She brought me back a mug from each one. I never use them though. They’re up in a cabinet in their original boxes.

    • SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

      Doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re a fan or royalist, either. I have a matching set of Chuck and Di wedding mugs from charity shops for the hilarious WTF factor, and the jewel in the crown of the Royal Tat collection is a mug with a photo of Diana and ‘Goodbye England’s Rose’ picked out in gilt.

    • Cws says:

      Totally agree we are seeing it wind down. Whether it ends with Charles or William, George will never become king.

  14. Lili says:

    No Sh!t Sherlock ! What a Massive F ‘k Up . the sad thing is its taken the Oprah interview to open their eyes to this mess . and yet Both of them are still burying their heads in the sand. It wont be easy to clean up decades of mess, but if they start now, in 20 or so years when william takes over there will be standards in place. Yeah i know 20 years for william to take over. i dont know if charles has the stones to clean up the mess. and they need to do it with out dragging the H&M into it.

    • Saucy&Sassy says:

      Lili, this is what I was just thinking. I have two sentences with a total of 4 words. Shut up. Fix it. There, that’s it. It will take a long time, but they can’t get it fixed if they don’t start fixing it. And, it just might reflect positively on them.

  15. Eurydice says:

    So interesting how Lacey is writing this – not flattering to the RF at all. But I can understand their failure of imagination – if the RF have always existed, how can they imagine anything else?

    • Becks1 says:

      He’s not flattering to the royals. I read the book last year and my thoughts were that if you were a hardcore fan of either the Sussexes or the Cambridges, you would not like the book, but if you read it a bit more objectively, there was a lot there. And he was snarky. I can’t remember the particular things that stood out to me, but overall there were a lot of comments that if you took at face value seemed bad, but in the aggregate it was obvious he was being snarky (and that was mostly at the Cambridges.) I know some people think he’s really pro-KP but I don’t think that’s the case. He’s definitely not pro-Sussex though.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Becks1 – I thought the exact same thing about the first edition of the Lacey book. Of the three books published last year (Lacey, Colin Campbell & Scobie) Battle of Brothers was the most fair and even handed. It was also the best written IMAO.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Becks1, ITA.

  16. Janethetrain says:

    Make no mistake. This is also KP’s play for the rest of the family. Meghan and Harry severely devalued an institution designed to look up too and envy, by simply walking away. Charles and William are now at war over the blame.

    So stupid.

    • Chica1971 says:

      @janettgetrain.. the blame goes both ways. Chuck for not showing his “modernized” monarchy by embracing a diversity. Remember those his comments to the black woman after the racist charge. Willam also went to war with biracial duchess for different set of reasons and played every racial stereotype there is.

      • Janethetrain says:

        100% agree! But now Meghan’s never even going to have to show the receipts if Charles and William keep doing it for her! It’s going to be a war of, “yeah but this is why he’s worse”.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        @Janethetrain it’s the War of the Wales’ Part 2!

    • North of Boston says:

      The Sussexes didn’t devalue the Institution by walking away.

      TPTB in the Institution tanked the value of it all by themselves. They did it by not recognizing the assets they had in the Sussexes, not allowing H&M to maximize their contribution to the Institution and by making horrible, short sighted, bigoted, petty decisions at every turn, driving them off.

      If a team manager and coach has a fantastic player who they leave parked on the bench and heap abuse on and treat unfairly, we don’t think the player ruined the team’s playoff chances by leaving. Instead the blame falls to the manager and coach for being cruel idiots and botching their jobs.

  17. Lori says:

    Doesnt most of the sovereign grant money actually go to paying staff and maintaining buildings. A few million go to the senior royals as pay for appearances but even their clothing allowances come directly from Charles’ duchy profits. So are some of these dusty courtiers about to get slimmed as well?

    • Becks1 says:

      Well, if you have fewer working royals, it follows that you would need less staff supporting them, right? And you would pay less for security costs, b/c even if you’re only providing security for working royals, if there are fewer, that’s just going to fewer RPOs that you need. And if you can make a building like Buckingham Palace into a museum year round, with maybe some space for events*, then you can make it maybe more self-sufficient and while it may still need some SG money, it would presumably be a lot less.

      *Can you imagine if they made BP available for weddings, even just the grounds? They could make a ton of money off rental fees alone lol.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Which is the reason they opened up the BP gardens for paid picnic trippers.

        I slightly disagree with you in that the only real money that will be saved is on personal professional staff (and minor royals do not have large personal professional staff) and Personal Royal Protection Officers.

        It will cost just as much to maintain (the number of electricians, gardeners, cleaners and professional kitchen staff will not change) and secure BP (and other Crown dwellings) no matter how many people live or do not live there. The major costs of the BRF is palace maintenance, general & personal security and transportation (private planes, helicopters & yachts).

        There will not be much $£$£ saved by getting rid of the Wessexes but it will look good to the public. It is just like when US politicians talk about getting rid of SNAP to lower the federal debt/deficit. So little money is spent on SNAP compared to the federal debt caused by defense spending that it really would not make any real difference. However, it looks and sounds good to people who resent anybody getting anything they themselves do not get.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Bay of course the costs will go down. If no one is living at Buckingham Palace, why do you need a professional kitchen staff of the current caliber that is there now? And if you keep one there for events and the like, then the costs are covered by the cost of the event. The salary of the chefs are no longer coming out of the sovereign grant. And that would trickle down to everything. The SG is not paying for the gardeners, that cost is factored into the cost of touring the palace (which would be open full time and the entire thing would be open.) Even the nature of security required would be different bc you aren’t actively guarding the monarch or other royals, you’re “just” guarding a building.

        Sure, it would still get some federal funding as a historic palace, especially in the beginning, but eventually it would be like most of the other large palaces and historic homes in the rest of the world and would rely largely on income from visitors, renting out for major events, etc.

        and then consider that the palace would be run by someone competent (hopefully) and Betty wouldn’t be able to hide the money meant for renovations and do other things with it.

      • equality says:

        They could lease out royal properties to movie makers and make enough to maintain. That would be too “hollywood” though.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Becks1 – I see your point with respect to evicting the BRF and assorted hanger-ons then turning BP into a museum with an internal attached event and wedding venue.

        I did not make myself clear as I referring to saving money in regards to a slim-downed monarchy only. I do not trust the BRF to economize. If professional kitchen staff (and other domestic staff) are reduced, will people be made redundant or will they be transferred to Apartment 1A Kensington, Clearance House, Anmer Hall and/or Highgrove House. The future Chucky III has always been a VERY BIG spender.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Bay ah I see what you’re saying – that even if they “could” reduce professional staff, will they? If they could spend less on security at BP for example, will they do that or will they just transfer more security to Clarence House or KP? That’s going to be the big issue IMO. With “slimming down” the monarchy, they should be able to slim down costs in a myriad of ways. Fewer royals taking the helicopter. Fewer RPOs. And so on. Will they? I think we all know the answer to that.

        It’s unfortunate though bc they could reduce their costs and it would be a big win in the eyes of the public IMO, but once again they are going to waste a golden opportunity.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I always thought that getting rid of the Civil List and moving to the Sovereign Grant was a big mistake. Looking back in hindsight, I think I was right.

        Decide who the working Royals are and give each a stipend (Civil List Payment) approved by Parliament and published in the Daily Fail and The Times for 100% transparency.

        The stipend is it with respect to handouts from public money or Crown funds! A working Royal pays for everything out of their stipend except for official overseas travel when representing the monarch at the monarch’s bequest. You want to take a helicopter to Cornwall or buy a McQueen ensemble, then you pay it out of your stipend.

      • Lucky Charm says:

        “Well, if you have fewer working royals, it follows that you would need less staff supporting them, right?” Unless your name is Cambridge, then you need as much staff as possible to hide the fact that you’re doing so little work, LOL!

    • Sid says:

      No one really knows how the Queen uses the Sovereign Grant since she is not required to report how the money is spent, IIRC. Yeah, it’s meant to pay for staff and building upkeep, but does every penny really go towards that? She sure wasn’t taking care of Buckingham Palace.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “She sure wasn’t taking care of Buckingham Palace”

        The BP long-term repair & maintenance funding was rumored to have been spent on renovations of apartment 1A at Kensington for the Cambridges plus renovations for apartment 1 at Kensington Palace for the Cambridge staff, a helicopter and helicopter landing pad, further renovations at the Windsor Castle Estate and updates to St. James Palace.

  18. Harper says:

    It’s dishonest to say all of this fell on the Queen’s lap right when she lost Philip. It’s been going down for years and Philip’s been holed up in Sandringham buggy riding with Penny not giving a hoot.

    • TeamMeg says:

      The whole “without Philip, the Queen is lost” theme sounds like pretty sexist messaging to me. I think QE2 is quite capable of understanding implications, treating people fairly, and setting proper standards for her family and staff, all on her own, if she so chooses. She has chosen not to. I hold her responsible for this mess.

  19. goofpuff says:

    The dumb part is this can be fixed to make the monarchy stronger, but the BRF don’t want to actually fix it because in order to do so they would have to take responsibility and break up the courtiers and RR hold on them. They keep digging their head in the sand hoping the fire around them will die out not realizing they are keeping it going adding more fuel to it.

  20. Chaine says:

    They look so absurd sitting there in their sparkly jewels on their sparkly jeweled thrones.

  21. equality says:

    Isn’t dancing with the president of another country part of QEII’s job as a “soft” diplomat? So how does that prove anything?

    • AmB says:

      And raise your hands everybody who was even alive back when she did it!

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        AmB, I was alive, but I wasn’t very old and have to admit that I couldn’t have cared less who danced with who. Well, now, maybe to fix everything they should have her dance with someone else for the photo op. There. Fixed. (I wonder if the Firm wants to hire me–I know how to spout the company line!)

  22. Alicejean Portwood says:

    You know I used to admire the queen and her family and everything but now after all of this Meghan Markle episode situation I have no respect for none of them except for Harry and his family Megan Charlie and little Diana I’m not even going to give prince Queen whoever. If she is any credit towards baby Diana name to me that’s baby Diana I don’t know no love that I don’t recognize that name like they don’t recognize mixed breeds don’t have titles

  23. Robin Samuels says:

    The one thing Charles needs to do is put William in check; he has crossed the line. When a man has that level of hatred for a woman, especially his brother’s wife, it’s suspect. William is accustomed to women drooling over him; Meghan wasn’t interested or impressed, all eyes on Harry🙄. Robert Lacey is like all the other reporters, journalists, historians, etc when it comes to the Royals. They will say anything because they know monarchists are gullible. QE2 has never been the sharpest knife in the drawer, Charles is cowardly and William is a “ mean girl”. God Save the Taxpayers of the UK🙏🏽

  24. aquarius64 says:

    Charles has no choice but to give HRH to Archie and Lili.

    • lanne says:

      It’s not a gift to be bestowed—it’s the titles the children are due because of their place as grandchildren of the future king. Only the Queen can issue a letters patent to prevent those children from their titles. If she doesn’t take that action, then Charles only option will be to leave the HRHs in place, or remove them. These titles aren’t granted. They can only be removed.

  25. Shannon says:

    Lacey’s new chapters are like responses to current criticisms. He’s updating these chapters like a blog with more detailed responses, everyday just to keep up…lol.

    The BRF are clowns. And these clowns 🤡 are living in Clown Town, located in Clown County, which is strategically located in the Isle of Salty White Tears—aka Britain.

  26. JRenee says:

    The Christmas photo minus any of the Sussex family says a lot…

  27. Noor says:

    Their courtiers and advisors may have not rendered them good service through the 21st century.

    Where is the “Lord Altrincham”‘ and the “Tony Blair” type of advisors in this crisis. Some of the senior palace aides are too young and non British like Jason Knauf.

    In particular, Kensington Palace and their staff were out of control with all their damaging leaks on Meghan. Their foolishness is apparent in running to The Times of London with the Saudi earrings debacle and the bullying allegations.

    The mainstream newspapers like the Times of London and The Telegraph have become more tabloid-like in their eagerness to publish the bullying allegations and other matters with an anti Meghan slant. The Times of London is no longer a faithful recorder of facts in this instance.

  28. Isabella says:

    What is wrong with Charles’ skin? He’s like a tomato .

  29. blunt talker says:

    Lacey saying the courtiers lost their damn minds having to take directions from a black duchess is spot on-this what I felt the real issue was-they had never had to work under a person of color in their life and balked at doing so-I knew this had to be the main issue with these people.

  30. MissMarirose says:

    Helen Mirren won an Oscar over a decade ago playing the Queen in a movie all about how she put her feet wrong back in 1997, but sure, this is her first oopsie. Riiiiiight.